Standing Committee B

[Derek Conway in the Chair]

Identity Cards Bill

Clause 8 - Issue etc. of ID cards

Amendment proposed [20 January]: No. 44, in clause 8, page 7, line 4, after 'issued', insert 'free of charge'.—[Mr. Malins.] 
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 186, in clause 37, page 31, line 24, at end insert—
''but no fee shall be imposed for a card issued in consequence of an order by the Secretary of State for compulsory registration.''. 
I wish to explain matters to members of the Committee who were not privy to what happened before they came into the Room. There has been a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, as a result of which I am required to finish the business under consideration when the Committee adjourned on Thursday evening, which is the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). When we have disposed of the amendment, the Committee may consider the proposals of the Programming Sub-Committee for up to half an hour. We shall then return to the business on the amendment paper. 
The Clerk has helpfully put copies of the Programming Sub-Committee's resolution on the Table, so that during the debate on the amendment, but before we deal with the amendment to the programme order, colleagues will have an opportunity to see where the knives fall. Members of the Committee might wish to familiarise themselves with that. 
We return to amendment No. 44, with which we are considering amendment No. 186. I think the Minister had concluded his remarks.

Des Browne: Yes, I had.

Derek Conway: So, it is now a matter of whether any other member of the Committee wants to contribute before Mr. Malins replies. I call Mr. Mercer.

Patrick Mercer: Thank you, Mr. Conway, and I welcome you to the Chair. I shall try to finish the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking on amendment No. 44 about the cost of the identity card. The identity card must first be constructed for individuals to buy and cost is one of the most important aspects of identity cards. We need to consider the issue of the opportunity cost in respect  of what the card can and cannot do and whether the sums raised to purchase the card might be better spent elsewhere.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), the shadow Home Secretary, said that this test is one of the most important of the five that the Opposition have identified to see whether the card will be useful, whether it will be practical—despite the fact that we support the idea of the card—and, when the card is available for use, whether it will be more or less useful than other measures that might be purchased rather than the card. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking was keen for the Minister to outline precisely how the card would be funded, asking whether the majority of the funds used to create it will come from taxation or the individual. He asked precisely how the card is meant to operate, in terms of counter-terrorism and assistance with the issue of illegal immigration, or whether it will simply be an entitlement card. He also asked whether, in all those cases, the money raised could be better spent. 
There has been a great deal of talk about the efficacy of the card and whether the biometrics of it mean that it will be sufficiently well developed to be effective for the price it will cost us. On top of that, every Government programme on means of identification leads to cost overruns. An example is the difficulties that the Government faced with the Passport and Records Agency. Therefore, I would like the Minister to be clear and furnish us with the details. What does he believe the card will cost in the first place? What will be the cost of setting up the construction of the card? How long will that process take and is the cost of the card likely to overrun significantly? There is no doubt that it is likely to overrun, because every other piece of Government legislation on identification that we have considered—whatever the political colour of the Government—has overrun. 
We have to ask whether the money used for identity cards will be wisely spent. Would it be better to say, ''No, we can use this considerable sum more profitably to buy other means of security.''? Would it be better to use the money to supplement our intelligence-gathering agencies, such as the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service? From that point of view, would the money be better spent in providing the operatives whom we have been told, ever since 11 September, we are woefully missing?

Humfrey Malins: I am following my hon. Friend's arguments with care. Is he aware of any studies that tell us what could be purchased—in terms of extra police, security services and the like—for the same amount that will be spent on identity cards to fight the battle against terrorism?

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. To address my hon. Friend's point, the Government, the Home Office and the Foreign Office have said consistently since 11 September 2001 that it is crucial that more specialist operatives be added to MI5 and MI6 to take forward, in particular, the  gathering of human intelligence, the interpretation of technical means and the interception of evidence and the like, which has become so important in the war on terror.
I am sure that all members of the Committee will have heard the ceaseless calls from the security services and will know how undermanned and under-resourced they are. The difficulty, of course, is putting a price on such a problem.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend is at the nub of the issue. I pay tribute to his background in these matters and to his personal knowledge of the armed forces, intelligence services and the like. I would be interested to hear him develop his arguments on the direct usages of the security services in reducing terrorism and on the cost involved.

Patrick Mercer: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I thank him for his kind words. The fact remains that it is extraordinarily difficult and expensive to add to the assets of the security services and to put a price tag on so doing. The difficulty is that such assets cannot be added overnight; those agencies cannot simply advertise for a new intelligence agent or a new spy. One of the crucial elements is that people must be properly qualified, particularly in languages and the assessment of intelligence coming in from abroad. That is not cheaply bought or created and it takes time and money to establish a fully effective member of those services. I would not care to put a price on what it costs to recruit and train an operative for either of those two services.
Committee members have to ask themselves, ''What else might we spend the money on?''. There is no doubt that MI5 and MI6 have been extraordinarily helpful in the war on terror, but ought we to consider, for instance, the suggestion from those on the Liberal Benches of creating a force to try to secure our borders more effectively? I do not know whether a price has been put on that, but it will not come cheaply. Should we be considering other methods to secure our borders, increase our intelligence-gathering capacity and enforce our laws, rather than spending this vast sum, which is unpredictable in terms of cost to the nation and whose direction is unknown?

Mark Oaten: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for mentioning some of our policies, but I urge caution. It would be wrong to assume that many such policies could or would be funded directly from any savings from an ID card proposal, because the card involves a levy on individuals that would have to be either replaced or imposed and transferred. Any development of alternative policies must include details of how they would be funded, because that could not be done just by replacing the ID card scheme.

Derek Conway: Order. Before the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) is sucked too far down the road of discussing what is Liberal Democrat or Conservative policy, I must tell the Committee that we need to stick to the terms of the amendment and  discuss whether the card should be free, rather than take a broader view of what else the money might pay for.

Patrick Mercer: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Conway. I shall briefly answer the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). I take his point. However, the Government have yet to explain precisely how the card will be funded, why there should be a levy raised on individuals, why it should not be funded entirely by the Government and what is the opportunity cost of the card, which is the nub of the point.
Can the Minister convince us that this is the most effective means of spending money to achieve the aims that he has set for the card? I look forward to the answer to that question, because it is, as I said earlier, one of the crucial tests that my party has set for the card. With the sums of money that are available, particularly with our police forces in such a parlous state, there might be other ways in which it could be spent, such as in respect of illegal immigration.

Gwyn Prosser: The hon. Gentleman is thrashing around looking for some other means to spend money, whether on the police, MI5, MI6 or our border control people. However, is not he aware that all those agencies, and all the people who represented them at the Select Committee, gave robust support for identity cards? Is not that a good way to spend the money?

Patrick Mercer: One wonders whether they were asked about other ways in which the money might be spent. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point—most agencies have supported the identity card—but were they asked, ''If a certain sum of money is available, what do you want to spend it on? Do you want it spent on identity cards or on an extra 200 operatives working abroad—in Pakistan, for example?'' I do not believe that that question was posed and one wonders what the answer would have been had it been asked.

Des Browne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said that the single most important thing that the Government could do to assist in the prevention of terrorism is to proceed to secure the identity of people who are resident in this country through an identity card scheme?

Patrick Mercer: I am aware that that is precisely what the commissioner said, but I want the Government to justify it and to give us a reasoned argument to suggest why the money should be spent at this stage on cards, rather than on the other needs that we have just discussed.

Jon Owen Jones: I wish to help the hon. Gentleman. He does not appear to have understood the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester, which is that the vast majority of the money for the cards will be raised from the people who get the card. Therefore, that money, which has not yet been raised, cannot be transferred to another use, however useful that might be.

Patrick Mercer: The fact remains that we are still talking about public money. If we are to ask people to pay a sum of money for a card, are we convinced that that is the only means of proceeding? Would we not be better spending the money on other agencies, resources and methods to counter the threat that we have been talking about?

Humfrey Malins: On that last point, when hon. Members said to me earlier in our proceedings that this is not public money but private money, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) rightly pointed out:
 ''We should not fool ourselves that the money is somehow not public money. I equate a charge that everyone must incur universally as being comparable with the council tax''.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 January 2005; c 207] 
That is a strong point.

Patrick Mercer: The point has been well made, as my hon. Friend points out—much better than I could make it.

Jon Owen Jones: I was not making that point, although we could argue about whether this is public or private money. If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue that the money could be better spent elsewhere, he must explain how he would persuade those same people—instead of spending the money on ID cards—to contribute to some new levy for whatever he proposed to spend the money on.

Patrick Mercer: I hope that the Minister will do that for us precisely. I have no doubt that we will be illuminated when he answers the question.
We must be sure that the money to be spent on ID cards will be spent effectively and we also need assurance on the question whether it might be better spent in other directions. I would be grateful if the Minister convinced me of that. Any number of agencies need, and would be grateful for, extra sums to make them more effective in the war on terror.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have had a chance to reflect and I had a look at last week's discussions in Hansard. I believe that the Minister said in our informal session earlier that he has put the answers to the questions I posed in the post. Did he say that or not?

Des Browne: I did what I undertook to do. I wrote to hon. Members, answering all the outstanding points that I undertook to the Chairman to answer. I copied that letter to all members of the Committee. I know that it was delivered through the House of Commons mail because my hon. Friends already have their copies. Indeed, last night, some of them were showing me their letter in the Lobby of the House of Commons. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman's post is handled in the same way as that of all other hon. Members, he will have the letter.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I do not want to make a great issue of this, but it is odd that Government Members on this Committee have got their copy, but Opposition Members have not. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who is meticulous, says from  a sedentary position that he has not got his. I have not got mine either. It would be helpful if such documents were put on the Table, so that members of the Committee could have access to them when they arrive in the Room.

Derek Conway: I have received a copy of that letter from the Minister in my post this morning, but obviously I do not know what has happened to other hon. Members' copies. If another copy is available, it might be put on the Table during this morning's sitting to help the Committee in its deliberations.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It would have been helpful to have got that information, because it would have helped this discussion. Perhaps the answers are in that correspondence.

Des Browne: If the hon. Gentleman looks across to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), he will see that he has his copy, which he must have got through the channels used by my hon. Friends. Of course, it is for the Clerk to decide whether correspondence to the Chairman is copied and put on the Table. I have no objection to that being done.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is very helpful. I am sorry if the Minister has already provided the answers to the questions that I am about to ask, but we need to have those answers on the record.
As I was saying at the end of the last sitting, the individual cost of the ID cards will depend critically on how many cards are issued. It would be helpful if the Minister intervened to let us know whether that figure is in the correspondence, because that will critically affect what I am about to say.

John Taylor: I have been trying to follow with care my hon. Friend's remarks. He inquires as to how many cards are likely to be issued. Does he not agree that that is the complete unknown? It is the ultimate X factor.
My mind is not finally made up on these issues. However, if the system is voluntary, the number of people who will choose to participate must remain unmeasurable at this time, unless another, different element begins to operate—namely, people in the private sector begin to require an identity card before they provide their services at cost. I have in mind my recent experience of buying a new motor car.

Derek Conway: Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, as he is a very experienced Member of the House. However, his intervention is long. He can, of course, catch my eye to make his contribution, because that is the nature of the Committee. However, before we go down the car route, I should say that that would be an intervention on the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I will be more than happy to call the hon. Gentleman next to tell us more about his experience.

John Taylor: There is an end to my anecdote about my motor car, and I shall return to it when I find a better and broader opportunity. At this stage, I shall  content myself by asking my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold how anybody could know how many applications there will be for the identity cards. The whole of society might turn its back on them, or everybody might want to have them along with everybody else. How can we know how many applications there will be?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has put his finger on the nub of the issue. That is exactly what I would expect from somebody with a forensic lawyer's brain, such as himself. He is absolutely right. We do not know how many cards will be issued. Unfortunately, for the purposes of this Committee and of discussing this matter, we have to make assumptions about numbers and figures. All we can do is work on the best possible assumptions and try to come to some conclusions.

Kate Hoey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I make my central point? I shall then happily give way to the hon. Lady.
I have done a little research since the last sitting. I find from the Office for National Statistics website that the total UK population is 59.2 million, higher than I had imagined—I had thought that it was 55 million or 56 million. That figure shows that the population is growing.

John Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If my hon. Friend will contain himself, I shall give way to everybody in a minute or two. The number of under-16s, who will not be required to register for an ID card, is some 12 million. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), as I have to find my calculations.

Kate Hoey: Is all this not irrelevant? The Minister has said, quite honestly, that no one should vote for the Bill if they do not understand that the identity card will be compulsory. We are talking about how many cards will be issued and so on. However, those voting for the Bill want a compulsory identity card. That is why the hon. Member for Winchester and many Labour Members voted against the principle of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention. I should like to deal with that point in a minute. I want to stick to figures and costs for the time being, to keep a logical semblance to what I am saying.

John Taylor: I have waited patiently for this opportunity. Inasmuch as my hon. Friend does not know how many people are going to take up the card, I challenge him—although I rarely do—on the precision with which he stated the population of the country.
One of the few vestiges of a good argument that the Minister possesses is that we do not know how many people there are in the country. That could just about be an argument in favour of identity cards. Will he revisit the question of the population of the country? I do not think that he knows what that is any more than anybody else does.

Derek Conway: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cotswold will not be tempted to debate how many people live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because that is not relevant to the amendment before the Committee. That may be a matter for a clause stand part debate, but it does not come within this group of amendments. I am sure he will not be tempted, but will return to the charge for issuing the card.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Conway.
There is a good and logical reason for examining the subject, and that is that the number of people in the country has a direct correlation with the number of people likely to take up the card. All we can do in Committee—I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull—is to make the best assumptions that we can, but we do need to know how many of the cards are likely to be issued. Nobody knows. My hon. Friend is right, that has to be an assumption. Once we make some sort of assumption as to the number of people likely to be applying, we can then make some assumption on the Government's figures. Dividing one by the other, we can get to a likely cost for the card. That is where I am getting to with my argument. That is why the number of people in the country is important. 
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not know precisely how many people there are in the country. These figures are the best we could find, from the website of the Government's Office for National Statistics. We know that in the next 30 years the population will age. We know that the percentage of older people aged 65 and over increased from 13 per cent. in 1971 to 16 per cent. in 2002, and is projected to rise to 23 per cent. by 2031. The population will age. I do not know how that ageing process and the average dynamics of the population will affect the take-up of identity cards—whether it will be more or less. My hon. Friend may have a view on that. Perhaps, as people get older and receive more in pensions—if this Government does not take them away—they will have more need to travel and for passports.

John Taylor: Is my hon. Friend missing another factor that ought to be taken into account in his calculation? If the identity card scheme comes in, will not a lot of people go away?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by that comment. Does he mean that those people will go underground or abroad?

John Taylor: Both.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend says both, from a sedentary position.

David Curry: One or the other.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As my right hon. Friend says, they cannot be both—underground and abroad. Perhaps they could go underground abroad.

David Curry: My hon. Friend is talking about the reliability of population statistics. Our annual debate on the distribution of local government funding shows the extent to which there is serious miscalculation of the population in the various boroughs. Not merely is the ONS incapable of counting population, on the last occasion it mislaid about 12,000 houses in Manchester. The reliability of the figures is very uncertain, so it would be unwise to base any costs on the ONS's calculations.

Derek Conway: Order. I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman replies to his right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, he will deal with how these figures relate to the issue of the charge—free or otherwise—according to the amendment. This is not a stand part debate. We are debating amendment No. 44.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The amendment is specifically about the costs of the cards. I did not expect to get taken down the road of debate on the population. I was just trying to make an assumption.

Chris Mole: As the subject of going underground was mentioned, I thought that this was an appropriate time for me to intervene.
One of the difficulties with the hon. Gentleman's contribution is that it is not clear whether he is trying to get to the global cost or the unit cost of the cards. For the global cost, the total number of people taking up the card is relevant in terms of the multiplier of the individual cost. However, for the unit cost, how the increasing number of take-up reduces the cost of manufacture and production needs to be considered. In such matters, there is usually an inverse exponential curve so that the greater the number, the lower the cost; and as a certain number is passed—I should have thought that 55 million was well past it—the unit cost of production will have levelled out.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, because he is absolutely right, and that is exactly the territory that I want to cover. I have been misled down the path of temptation on a number of occasions, but I will try not to be so again.
Mr. Taylor rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am being tempted again.

John Taylor: In the good point that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) so incisively made, he described the relationship between total numbers and take-up. That leads us to another complete unknown: how many providers of private sector services will require the production of a card to provide those services? That will be an impeller of take-up that the Committee cannot possible measure.
While I am on my feet making what is for me a very rare intervention—

Derek Conway: Order. I am sorry, but the intervention is long and it is not relevant to the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I will try not to be led down the path of temptation, although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
I want to stick to the agenda outlined by the hon. Member for Ipswich, because he put his finger on the nub of this issue. We have to make some assumptions on numbers of the population. For the purposes of what I am about to say, I am making an assumption that we have 59.2 million people, as registered by the ONS. I take on board the points of other Committee members that there may be many more underground, but these ONS figures are the best that we have. There are 12 million people under 16, and if we subtract one from t'other, that leaves an adult population of 47.2 million people who are required under the terms of this measure to have an identity card if they wish to apply for a passport. 
The hon. Member for Vauxhall took us into another debate on whether or not there is compulsion. Unfortunately, she has left the Committee, but the Minister made it clear that there is compulsion. 
We can only go on the figures currently provided to us by the Government. As they have given them to us, I presume that they are the best available figures at present, although I will cast aspersion on them. The principal figures are an estimated annual cost of £415 million for biometric passports by 2008-09, an £85 million estimated annual cost for operating ID cards on top of passports, and a £50 million estimated annual cost to provide verification of services. 
Those figures given to us by the Government are undisputed, and the Minister confirmed them at the end of the last sitting, although whether they are correct is a different matter. They add up to £550 million per annum over the 10 years covered by the scheme. Whether or not the Minister likes it, the figure is £5.5 billion. Taking the 47.2 million of the population, and taking 80 per cent. of that—

Derek Conway: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he is in full flow, but if he looks at the report of our proceedings for the fourth sitting on Thursday afternoon, he will see that the comments that he is now making are almost identical to those that he made in column 209. We are continuing Thursday's debate, so he has already made these comments in this debate. I must draw that to the hon. Gentleman's attention, because the Chair cannot allow him to do that. I am sure that he will not wish to repeat the arguments that he has already made to the Committee, albeit on a different date, but still in this debate.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The problem at the time was that I did not have the accurate population figures to hand. Dividing one by t'other—the 37.76 million, the figure that I did not have at our previous sitting—brings us to a cost of £116 per person for the card. That is different territory from the £85 per card that the Government recently estimated. Even the figure of £85 has increased substantially during the months in which the debate has taken place. If the sum is £116 now, what on earth will it be in seven years, when the cards are introduced? Will the figure be double or treble  that? I do not know. However, I do know that £116 is a large sum indeed, especially for constituents who are either on benefits or fixed and low incomes. It will be a big proportion of their income, and if they want to travel abroad to see relatives, who they might not otherwise see, and apply for a passport for a one-off occasion, £116 is a great deal of money.

Humfrey Malins: That is why I tabled an amendment to add the words ''free of charge''. There is a significant point to be made. If the cost is likely to be in excess of £100, does that mean that those who are poor and in receipt of benefits must, as night follows day, receive a substantial discount, otherwise they will not be able to pay it? Thus, the cost must be found from somewhere else, so for those of more moderate means the bill may be much higher indeed. Yet, we do not know.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sorry, Mr. Conway, that I was led down the path of temptation about population statistics and that I repeated the figures, but it was important to put them on the record again so that I could establish the methodology of how I reached the sum of £116.
The cost of the cards is a critical point for the Committee. I hope that, before we dispose of the amendments, the Minister will give us more accurate information. I might be completely wrong about the matter. I do not have a fount of wisdom any more than anyone else and I shall be more than happy if the Minister can destroy my logic and methodology. I should be delighted if the cards cost considerably less, but I have a great fear in my bones that that is only the starting cost and that we shall see much greater costs in the future.

Patrick Mercer: My hon. Friend seeks illumination, and I hope that the Minister can provide the answers that he requires. Does my hon. Friend believe that there will be one set charge for the cards across the spectrum or is it more likely that those who can pay will pay and those who cannot pay will have a reduced cost levied against them, which will have to be met from elsewhere?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend made an interesting intervention, but I do not wish to go too far down that road because I would again be straying off the amendment. The issue is important because the sum seems to be a flat-rate charge, so those on limited low incomes and benefits will be hit disproportionately by the high charge. It is not as though they will have a choice. As the Minister has made absolutely clear, the system will be compulsory for all those over 16 who apply for passports. Moreover, under the designation powers of the Bill, we do not know whether it will be compulsory to produce other documents.
The Minister must be a little more precise. He touched on matters when he said that it will be for others in the future to decide which groups have to pay the charge and which groups do not. I am on the subject to which the hon. Member for Ipswich referred. I have now adduced the unit cost of the cards and am beginning to go on to the general taxpayer  cost, a cost that will be paid by all of us. The private individual costs are likely to be in excess of £100—we do not know by how much—but there are likely to be substantial other general taxpayers' costs. The Committee has a duty to examine those. The Minister needs to give us some idea of what the social security cost will be. We must have some assumptions in this Committee, otherwise we will get absolutely nowhere. 
We already know that, under the Bill, the Government will give free passports to those of pensionable age. Does that mean that they will also give free identity cards to those pensioners? That is a significant point. If we are to give all pensioners free identity cards at £116 each, that will come to a significant amount. The Minister owes it to the Committee to tell us the Government's assumption on social security costs. If pensioners receive identity cards free of charge, why cannot those on benefits? After all, they are in just as difficult a strait. They are on low, fixed incomes. If they want to make a one-off visit to friends or relatives, they too will have to pay the costs. So, the Minister needs to tell us a little more about the social security costs. 
Still on the second category—the central costs to be paid by the taxpayer—I would like to examine a little further the one figure that the Government have given us that we have not yet discussed, or at least not this morning, anyway. That is the £186 million estimated set-up costs for the first three years from November 2003. 
The Government's history of large computer projects is pretty woeful. There is the example of the Ministry of Defence procurement software. Things are even worse in the national health service. Before you rule me out of order, Mr. Conway, I should say that I am just giving a few examples. We know that the health service has had a series of disastrous large computer projects. In some cases, they have not really worked; the project on reading codes, for example, never really worked properly. Its successor, the patient records computer programme, has had a huge cost overrun—the cost now runs into billions of pounds—and is not even working yet. It has overrun not only its costs but its projected commencement date. How do we know that the figure of £186 million is in any way reliable? I suspect that it is a woeful underestimate. 
Can the Minister can tell us a little more—he might have done so in his note—about how he envisages the computer programming will be set up? Will it be a bespoke system for the United Kingdom, will it be bought from the Americans, or will it come from Europe? Until we know a little more of that detail, we do not know whether the £186 million figure is accurate. 
There are a huge number of unknowns and variables, and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull pointed to a few. Before we leave the matter—certainly on Report and in the other place—we will need answers to those questions that are as accurate as the Government can possibly make them at this stage. If we do not get those answers, the public will not believe  in the validity of the need for the cards. It is important that the Government should give us some accurate figures.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend might care to pose a question about whether we know the likely costs of setting up the national identity scheme commissioner yet, not to mention his staff. The Bill is so vague about that—we will come to the subject later—that we do not know the cost.

Derek Conway: Order. The hon. Member for Cotswold will not be tempted to go down that road, because that would be a general discussion about the cost of the entire scheme. He is, quite rightly, speaking to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Woking about the issue of the cards and the charge, or otherwise, for that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: You are making some very helpful rulings this morning, Mr. Conway, but I should say in passing that my hon. Friend is right in what he said. We will have a debate on it later. That is another additional cost to which I had not yet alluded. It is part of the central cost that every one of us who is a taxpayer will have to bear. Not only will that be in addition to the personal, one-off £116 cost of getting the ID card, but our taxes are likely to be increased to pay for all those other costs. The public—and indeed, Committee members—are entitled to hear from the Minister some fairly accurate figures on the costs.

David Curry: I have not yet made a speech in the debate, so at least I cannot repeat myself.
The pundits told us that yesterday was a particularly bad day; it was supposed to be the worst day of the year. I can vouch for that, because I sent a significant cheque to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the absolute certainty that it would be spent much less well than I could spend it myself. That got the week off to an extraordinarily bad start, but it concentrated my mind on costs. It reminded me that, as the good lady once said, there is no such thing as Government money—all their money comes from the taxpayer in one shape or form. 
Sending what I regard as a fairly significant slab of what has come from the sweat of my brow to the Chancellor put me in mind of the fact that there is choice about the way in which money is spent: that is essential to the whole argument of politics. I am very conscious that two years ago in my constituency we had an increase in the police precept of 72 per cent.

John Taylor: How much?

David Curry: Seventy-two per cent. They are all organised into families, and the new chief constable thought, ''We are not spending as much as our family, but we ought to spend the average''. The police authority—not a particularly impressive body—endorsed that, and the result was that 72 per cent. increase. My constituents are still wondering what that has bought; it does not seem to have bought anything significant.
I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. I say straight away that I do not share the general wisdom that that Committee is Parliament at its finest. I think that the National Audit Office is a magnificent body, and I am not always convinced that the Public Accounts Committee adds as much value as people say. However, we get a regular set of cuttings from the National Audit Office, virtually every one of which is about the failure of Government schemes in one shape or form. After all, that is what the National Audit Office is there to investigate. 
Everybody here probably listens to the ''Today'' programme, as we are all political junkies, but we are told that most of the population does not. In fact, I understand that none of our target voters does at all, and that is probably true for all three parties. However, we who do will have been listening during the past week to apoplectic GPs' telephone calls in response to the Secretary of State for Health's remarks about the new NHS booking system. One headline reads: 
 ''The doctor won't see you now. He can't. A costly computer system brought in to speed appointments is on the brink of failure.'' 
There were about 18 cuttings on that costly scheme, which—believe it or not—is more modest than the scheme that we are discussing. Yesterday, the Inland Revenue explained to the Public Accounts Committee that it intended to take one of its IT systems providers to court because of problems from the over-payment or under-payment of people. There was also the famous—legendary—Passport Office scheme, which went wrong. At the end of the day, all such things will impact on the amount of money that the individual will pay for his identity card.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend while he makes such a cogent case. The problem is that we as a society, and particularly Government operations, have become very dependent on computer systems. To give an example of what is happening at this very moment, the Child Support Agency's computer system has broken down. Even when it has all the facts of a case, it is having to do its calculations manually, which takes 20 weeks. Therefore, some constituents will not have their money for that period. If such computer systems are liable to break down, how will the computer system cost for ID cards be able to be calculated, and can we be sure that the system will work anyway?

David Curry: That is a powerful case, and I too was going to cite the CSA. For the most part it is mothers who come to our surgeries and say that years have gone by and there has not been a dicky-bird from the father, he cannot be traced and no money has been paid. They are some of the disappearing people. I do not know whether they are counted in the ONS figures and whether they will have ID cards. I am against ID cards, but if they track down miscreant fathers who dodge paying for their children's upkeep, that might be one good reason for them. Again, that is an instance of the unreliability of the figures and the difficulty of tracing people if they decide that they do not want to be traced.
My hon. Friend has fairly said that the cost to the individual will depend very much on how many cards are issued. I found myself in the slightly surreal world where we have compulsory ID cards that are voluntary; one volunteers for them. They are compulsory, but people do not have to carry them. Will the card be like my driving licence, where if I am stopped by the police for an inadvertent and innocent misdemeanour I have a week to present it to the police station of my choice?

Derek Conway: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House. He and I both know what he is about. He is not talking about the amendment, but about whether he should carry the card or produce it. As he well knows, none of that is related to the amendment. I am sure that he will now address his remarks as to whether the card should be issued free of charge, as his colleagues are proposing.

David Curry: I am grateful for that, because I clearly did not join up my sentiments in the way that I ought to have done. I was making the point that I will be charged for something. I cannot quite make up my mind whether it is something material or some sort of chimera, which I need or need not carry and which I may or may not be asked for. Apparently, I stand more chance of being asked for it at my doctor's surgery than I do if I were committing a major offence. I find that difficult to get my mind round.
The Minister has always answered very fully. He has said that the Government reserve the option of not requiring everybody to have an ID card or to register, and my hon. Friend began to explore that. I thought that he would go further and I will now do so. The Minister said that the need to register and the eventual requirement for a card will start at the age of 16. At some stage the Government may feel that 16 is too old or too young for that requirement. They could raise the age to 18, which is the voting age, or lower it to 14, because they think that kids grow up and become independent faster now than they used to.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: One way of painlessly introducing ID cards—if that is what we want to do—is to give everybody an identity card number at birth free of charge. In that way, within a relatively short period of time, most of the population would have got a card.

David Curry: That would be a way of cracking the issue in the overwhelming number of cases.
Let us consider the elderly spectrum of the population in the United Kingdom. The Government will know how many people—the over-60s—receive the winter fuel allowance. I have been in receipt of it this year. It is a dotty idea that somebody in reasonably, though not excessively, paid employment such as myself should get a winter fuel allowance, but I have done. I thank the Government very much for that £200. It is not as much as the cheque that I put in the post to the Chancellor, but I received it. I was not asked whether I wanted it, but I was told that I was going to get it. 
The Government could decide that over-60s should not have the card. We all know that there are special provisions for television licences when someone reaches a greater age. As we know, all the parties are niggling about whether there should be special provision in terms of council tax for people who have reached a certain age. My father is 87, and his capacity to commit acts of terror is somewhat limited now; indeed, his capacity to get downstairs unaided is fairly limited. Is it seriously intended that people of, for example, 80 and over will be required to have an identity card? That is a significant element of the population. The unit cost of this will depend considerably on measures that the Government have said are within their discretion, such as how many people will be required to register and will eventually need to have a card.

John Taylor: I have admired by right hon. Friend for many years, but it is possible that he is making a false point about age. Will older people who want to drive a motor car be able to obtain a driving licence if they do not have an identity card? If they want to buy a motor car, will not the rules against money laundering require them to produce an ID card before they can get a finance agreement to buy a car, let alone drive it?

Derek Conway: The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is not going to reply to that point.

David Curry: I am certainly not, and I would not dream of mentioning that what my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said would strike terror into the heart of my 87-year-old father when he buys his next Volkswagen Polo. You are very wise, Mr. Conway, to direct me not to trespass down that route.
However, it is true that the Government have the discretion to exempt people from the requirement to register, and if it does that by categories, that will have an impact on the unit cost of the card.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend will have heard me say that in later clauses the Government propose to allow pensioners to have passports free of charge. Unless the Minister tells us otherwise, it follows from that that pensioners will be free of any charge in terms of the identity card. I have already adduced the argument that the population is ageing, so it follows that the cost to the general taxpayer of the identity cards will be greater. We need to hear something about that from the Minister.

David Curry: I cannot add anything to my hon. Friend's lucid comments on that.
However, I want to rehearse again the problem of making sure that we know what numbers we are talking about. There are many cases where statistics that are crucial for the funding of public services are wrong. We know that happened in Westminster; the ONS lost many thousands of inhabitants, which caused a real problem in the funding of that London borough, and that had to be corrected. In Richmond in North Yorkshire—in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—there are major military installations, and there is a perennial problem of counting the heads of the people who live there, for funding purposes. I was not joking when I said that a whole area of Manchester did not figure at all in the ONS statistics. That included the real estate; even those people's addresses seem to have disappeared. However, the Post Office managed to deliver letters to them, even though they did not exist as far as other Departments were concerned. It is crucial to know whom we are talking about, if we are to make the necessary cost calculations. 
Will the costs be uniform across the United Kingdom? There is a wide range of services with regard to which people in Scotland appear to receive preferential treatment; the services are provided at lower cost than in other parts of the UK, or they are free, or they are available in a different way from in England. In the Queen's Speech debate, the leader of the Scottish National party challenged the Prime Minister on whether there would be differential application of this measure. The Prime Minister responded by saying that there is a logic to devolution that would have to work through the system. I would be very concerned if my constituents were hit yet again by being required to have their card in a different way from in other parts of the country. This issue is crucial for individuals. 
We have all been talking as if the cards somehow appear by magic, so that we sign a cheque or a credit card and then we get them. There are as well capital set-up costs for every single place where the card might be required to be read. That is where the record of all Governments—not just this one—is simply dreadful, partly because they do not seem able to write a specification effectively. That may be worst in military procurement, but IT procurements for civil jobs seem to run massively out of control. My little book of words from the NAO relates to me on a weekly basis how all those things go wrong. 
Once embarked on—because we are not turning back—the argument will always be to find the extra millions to put things right. Those extra millions will keep cropping up over and over. Before we know where we are, there will be a massive public cost in capital expenditure. The cost to the individual could start escalating significantly. All this for a card I do not want.

Humfrey Malins: We have had a long debate, and an important one. I rise now to make my concluding observations on amendment No. 44, on the cost of the scheme.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and my hon. Friends the Members for Newark and for Solihull for their different and differing contributions towards a most important debate. 
I said at the beginning of my remarks—last Thursday, I think—that the debate was intended to enable us to look into the real costs of the scheme. I said that it was probably the most significant debate that we were going to have. I asked: 
 ''Is the cost of the register—and the cards, readers . . . —worth it?'' 
I posed these questions to the Minister: 
 ''Has it been considered''— 
and, if so, by whom— 
''whether the same amount could be better spent in other ways to achieve the same objectives, in particular, the principal objective, which must be the reduction of terrorist activity?''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 January 2005; c. 198.] 
I asked the Minister about the police and the security services. I asked, in particular, what their arguments were. I asked whether the police had discussed with the Government other ways of spending the same money, but in a preferred way. 
I have to say that I am disappointed that the Minister, who usually gives such comprehensive and full answers, did not think that he was able to deal with any of those questions in his response. If the total cost of the scheme is to be £5 billion—on the issue of costs, this morning my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold has done a huge service—all we are asking is whether anybody, at any stage, has considered whether such a sum might instead bring us 25,000 extra police, an extra 1,000 in the security services or stronger border controls? Have they compared the two and said which is better value for money? I have not yet had a comprehensive answer to that point. 
When I asked the Minister, among other questions, for his best estimate of the total cost of the scheme, he referred me—not improperly but, if I may say so gently, slightly unhelpfully—to the regulatory impact assessment. We have all had the benefit of reading that assessment, which, however, I do not think tells the whole story. 
The advantage of having had a weekend to reflect on last week's debate is that other important points about cost have emerged. A particular issue relating to my probing amendment on the card being provided free, which has not been answered—my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong—is whether everyone will have to pay the same amount. 
This morning my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold concluded in an intervention, which I do not think has been challenged by the Minister, that the cost of the card could be about £116, based on the figures that the Minister helpfully provided the other day,  which I do not need to repeat. I am sure that it will not have escaped the notice of any Committee member present that the Government's current best estimate of the cost to the individual of a combined passport-and-identity-card package that is valid for 10 years is £85. I may have got it wrong, but if they are saying that that is their current best estimate, and my hon. Friend's figure of £116 has not been challenged, that may be a pointer to the fact that the Government cannot be accurate in what they are saying.

Patrick Mercer: The sum of £116, to which my hon. Friend is referring, prompts the question whether there will be a sliding scale. Of course, that matter has not been addressed by the Minister—we are clear about that—but should not it be pointed out that if the cost to people will vary, the sum of £116, which is itself excessive, might turn out to be quite modest? If some people are not paying, it is self-evident that those who have to pay that relatively modest sum, if it is correct—and I am sure that my hon. Friend has considered it in detail—will perhaps be looking at £130 to £150 per card.

Humfrey Malins: We may even be looking at more; my hon. Friend is right in that respect. I have to say sincerely to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon that next year's winter fuel allowance may just be sufficient to pay for his card, so if the cheque is not marked ''Account payee'' it could be endorsed back to the Home Secretary, having been received from the Chancellor.
This is a vital issue. I do not understand how we can have a debate on the cost of the cards without having the firmest indications from the Government as to their proposals for those on supplementary benefits and the like, because many people may have to pay considerably more.

Mark Oaten: I am interested in the point about the charge being more than £85. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the Minister's polling, which he has quoted, which says that 68 per cent. of the public would be prepared to pay for a card that cost £85? Have the Conservatives done any research on whether tipping the cost over £100 would bring down that figure?

Humfrey Malins: This is my first opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to our deliberations and say that we much enjoyed the presence of his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, in earlier sittings. The hon. Gentleman is right. The polling on people's reactions to cost is interesting. One poll seems to have overtaken another. If 68 per cent. of the population, or thereabouts, would be prepared to pay up to £85 for a card, it seems highly likely, although we cannot be sure, that if people were asked, ''Would you be prepared to pay £116, or even more?'', their reaction would be very different, and swathes of them would say no.
The reason that we are in difficult territory is illustrated by the issue of age. I do not know enough about procedure to know when the Minister will have an opportunity to deal—more thoroughly, please— with various issues that were raised on Thursday and with those that are being raised today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, the cost of the card to the individual must surely have some relationship to the number of cards that are issued by the Government. We skated over the point in an earlier debate on clause 2, when we found out that those who are entitled to be entered on the register are those who have attained the age of 16. However, the Secretary of State may subsequently, by order, modify the age. As my hon. Friends have said this morning, there is no indication from the Government as to their thinking on that. 
Turning back to the cost, we are all aware that many 16-year-olds, who will have to be issued with this card, are not in employment but at school. The Government promote continuing education, A-levels, and so forth—many say that that is a good thing—but not once have they told us who will pay if a card is to be issued to a 16-year-old.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am sure that he is aware because of his own children, as I am aware because of mine and their friends, that children tend to travel at a much younger age these days, so the need for those aged 16 to 20 to apply for a passport while still in full-time education is likely to increase. Many of those people have no income, so they will be particularly badly hit by these provisions.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend is right. One assumes that there is no question of making a child aged 16 personally liable for such a debt: it is voluntary in the same way that a passport application is voluntary. However, one is faced with the prospect of parents having to pay for a card for their child, or children, at 16 or under. The point was made a little earlier in the debate that there is a trend for children to reach maturity and do more in life at a younger age, lawfully, than was the case many years ago. The matter of payment on behalf of children, which burdens the family, has not been explored by the Minister. We are entitled to hear much more.
In the last debate I asked the Minister for a little information about the cost of biometric readers, and I think—I will be corrected if I am wrong—he referred me to the regulatory impact assessment, which says that the likely cost is between £250 and £750 each. I hope that I will be forgiven for saying that that is a wide range. It is disappointing that we have not had a more accurate figure, or some argument from the Government about why no such figure could be found at this stage. That means that we are, to a great extent, stepping forward in the dark. 
I also asked the Minister how many biometric readers there would be in the country, but received no answer; perhaps he cannot tell us. However, it follows automatically that the more biometric readers there are, the greater the set-up and running costs will be, not to mention the individual cost.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is, as always, on to another interesting point, which pertains to what my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull said. People  will be entitled to check the biometric cards for purposes other than tackling criminal activity. Does my hon. Friend think it entirely probable that large employers, such as the NHS and the Ministry of Defence, which have a large staff turnover, will have to have biometric readers in their recruitment office so that they can easily vet those who are applying for a job?

Humfrey Malins: I am certain that my hon. Friend is right: such employers will have to have biometric readers. I think that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that the debate has been disappointing because we have put many questions to the Government, but we have not had full answers. My hon. Friend makes a good point in that respect. It is also disappointing that we have not had a full response from the Minister on the charging regime as it relates to different age and income groups. I do not know what the procedure is when making such a point, Mr. Conway; I just leave the thought with you.
Such is the importance of the many issues—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) wish to intervene?

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is misleading us slightly, and as an experienced—

Derek Conway: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that, and that he is not accusing his colleague of misleading the Committee.

John Robertson: In danger of misleading us, I meant to say. You were quite right to correct me, Mr. Conway. The hon. Member for Woking, with his vast experience of filling the Chair, will understand exactly the rules governing what he says.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—has been a contributor to our debates. I do not think that he intended to cast a slur on my character, and I forgive him if he accidentally did so. The point that I was making when he intervened is that we have not had a full debate on how the charging regime will apply to people who are vulnerable, poor, rich, very young, very old or homeless.
When we go back to our constituencies at the weekend, people will say to us, ''You've been debating the cost of the identity card in Committee for the past fortnight. What will it cost us, bearing in mind our family circumstances and the number of children we have?'' The truth is that we will not be able to answer them, because we simply have not been provided with that information, and that is very disappointing. Earlier, I confirmed the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam made, quite rightly, towards the end of last week: we should not fool ourselves that the sums are not public money. Of course the total cost is public money; it must be.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend consider that, if my costings are right and a card is to cost £116, it will cost an average family—two parents and two children—nearly £500 to get their identity cards? They can easily get cheap flights for £20 or £30 each, so the cost of the flights is likely to be less than £150, yet they will have to pay £500 for the ID cards. Where is the equity in that?

Humfrey Malins: There is no equity at all; my hon. Friend is entirely right. I say now, before the whole Committee, that if the Government are directly to challenge to what my hon. Friend said about the possible cost of the card, let them tell us so, in an intervention or otherwise. I see that they are not doing so.
The document that the Government gave us right at the beginning of the Committee resulted in my hon. Friend concluding that the overall cost of the scheme could be in the order of £5.5 billion, a vast sum. It is distressing for Opposition Members to have to put forward that figure as a possible cost based on the Government's own figures. However, we were met with Stephen Harrison's evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. The Chairman had said: 
 ''1.3 billion to 3.1, quite a wide range. 1.8 billion between top and bottom'', 
and in reply—

Derek Conway: Order. The hon. Gentleman read quite a lengthy extract from the proceedings of that Committee earlier. I am sure that he is experienced enough to know that the Chairman could not possibly allow him to read it into the record a second time.

Humfrey Malins: That is entirely right. I was accused by Labour Members, rather unfairly I thought, of spending too much time looking at what the Home Affairs Committee had to say about the issue of cost. I quoted the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and got into some trouble for doing it. That is entirely right, and it is not to be quoted again today; but the actual bracket given there—£1.3 billion to £3.1 billion—is rather different, I think, from the figures given to us today.
I am disappointed that we have not had more contributions from Government Members on the issue of costs. It is a great shame, because at least one of them would take a very serious view on this issue, that we have not had a contribution from them on this point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this, but could the fact that the Government Benches are not interested in costs on this matter indicate that they are not really too interested in how much taxes will have to go up for their constituents to pay for all of this?

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend makes a very valid point indeed. Anyone who is interested in the principle of good housekeeping must be interested in the issue of costs. Yet when I have looked to those on the Government Benches in this Committee for  contributions to the debate, either probing the Government—which is a perfectly proper duty for Labour Back Benchers—or alternatively arguing against the proposition that we make, it has been very disappointing indeed that we have not had any activity in that respect.
There will be a later debate, of course, on other issues relating to the cost, but now might be an appropriate time to flag up the fact that the vagueness of the costs of the commissioner and his staff is a factor that we shall have to consider that has not so far been put into the melting pot of this debate. That is to say, we do not have any idea of those costs.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will not give way if he feels I am being too much of a nuisance, but he is raising some very important issues. Bearing in mind the Chairman's earlier strictures that we must not discuss the commissioner, has my hon. Friend formed any idea of the costs in his own mind? This forms a very important part of the second category, the general costs of the identity cards that the taxpayer will have to bear.

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend prompts me to say, in answer to his question, that I have reached a view about this on which the Government are welcome to challenge me if they are willing to do so. Noting, of course, that the Bill is so vague as to permit the commissioner to have such staff as are deemed fit, if one looks at some of the bodies that have mushroomed under this Government—the Electoral Commission is not a bad example—one sees their costs going up year by year at a vast rate. If the commissioner himself is on a salary commensurate with the importance of his or her position—I understand it to be a very important position indeed—and with a minimum of 10 staff, not to mention rentals of properties and other outgoings, we could be into well in excess of £1 million a year, and possibly vastly more, just on that alone. That has been put to the Government.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I pose this point. The Minster has spoken once in this debate, but by leave of the Chair he might have an opportunity to speak again, and I think there is some argument that he should speak again to take us through the many separate matters that have been raised this morning. The alternative is that the debate will draw to a close with many more questions unanswered than answered, and with Opposition Members feeling very unhappy at the absence of information from the Minister. I am disappointed with the Minister's response to our debates last week, and disappointed that he has not felt able to intervene in the debate this morning—even if he did not want to make a set speech—to deal, one by one, with the various questions that have been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is such a disappointment, given that the costs are such an important part of this scheme. The Minister may return to the matter later in Committee or on Report, but I think that I speak on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that the issue of cost will not go away. We shall not simply bury it, because we feel strongly about it. The Government have a real duty to  tell us how the scheme will be paid for, what the cards themselves will cost and which regimes will apply to different people.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to take my hon. Friend down one more avenue, but it is strictly relevant to the debate. Before he sits down, will he tell us whether he has done any research into the cost of identity cards in, for example, other European countries? Are the costs that we are talking about higher or lower? If he does not know, does he not think that that Minister should tell us?

Humfrey Malins: Yes. My hon. Friend raises an important point about comparability. I am bound to say that I got full details of the compulsory schemes in certain European countries from a website. By way of an aside, let me say that my dear darling daughter has a degree in French and Spanish and was able to translate some of the information for me. It appeared to me, although I cannot be sure, that the figures for comparable European countries were potentially lower than those that we are talking about. The Minister, during his remarks on Thursday last, and perhaps even today, could have taken the Committee step by step through the experiences of other countries as regards the cost of setting up a scheme, the annual running costs and the cost to the individual.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is an important point. The Government are telling us all that provision for things in Europe must become more equal across the different countries. If my hon. Friend is right that costs in Europe are lower than they are here, and someone who comes to settle in this country for three months has to pay more for the British identity card that he will require than he would for an identity card in his own country, that would surely infringe European competition laws.

Humfrey Malins: European competition law has not been mentioned so far, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, because the Government have a duty to explain it.
Inadvertently, my hon. Friend has also made another very real point. There are those who will be visiting us for more than three months—possibly for four or five months—and the cost that they will have to meet for an identity card will have an impact on them. We have not been told this, but I assume that when I get my identity card, it will last for a period of years, so I shall get value for money in one sense. If one averages the cost out over a period of years, it will come to less per year for me than for somebody visiting on a very short-term basis.

Mark Oaten: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that his card will last for a long time. If he were to change address, or otherwise to change his circumstances, he would need to change his card, so he is wrong to assume that he would necessarily be keeping it for 10 years.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I am not sure about you, Mr. Conway, but I have no intention of changing  address—I hope that my next address will be heaven. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, however, many people, such as service people, constantly move from one address to another, but, again, the Minister has been unable to give us a different charging scale for that vital group. If I have not done so already, I should mention that my parents had a very large number of houses during their years in the Army. People in such circumstances now will, of course, need to register every time they move, and that could involve a further cost. That does not take away from my substantial point about the costs to people who are proposing to remain in their home compared with the costs to people coming from abroad for a short time. The costs for us probably represent better long-term value than they would for others who are visiting us for a short period.

Patrick Mercer: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that we have not had from the Minister a comparison of how such schemes have had to be adapted in Europe, or Australia—a better example probably—after 11 September 2001, and that we have not been given a benchmark against which to measure the likely expenses of the card based on experience elsewhere? He mentioned service personnel, for example. Will they be charged each time that their posting changes and they need an identity card? Will they be recompensed for the fact that they will be carrying two identity cards? Does my hon. Friend agree that some form of illumination from the Government would have been desperately useful and might have avoided the many unanswered questions that he so rightly referred to just now?

Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend was so right to refer to a benchmark. If we had been given a firm benchmark from the Government or an illustration of the position, we would have been so much better informed and many of the debating points that we have rightly had to make this morning would have been properly answered.

David Curry: Did my hon. Friend hear on the ''Today'' programme and note from the Financial Times today that Oxford university is proposing to increase its recruitment from outside Europe to students who pay full fees? What will be the position of people who come to the United Kingdom to study and who will perhaps be in college for one term, in digs for another year and elsewhere during their vacations?

Humfrey Malins: My right hon. Friend asks a question that I am terribly sorry to say that I cannot answer properly. However, the Government have a duty to answer it. Many of us believe that foreign students bring enormous benefits to this country in respect of their work and long-term relationships, but we have not had any guidance from the Minister on how they may be affected, particularly if they move addresses. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, and I am looking to my right hon. Friend, but I think that the Government have powers under the Bill to impose  charges when people register changes as they go along in life. We have not received a full explanation from the Minister about such circumstances.
The debate has been a major disappointment to Conservative Members. We could have concluded our proceedings this morning so much wiser about the total costs of the scheme and its cost to various individuals. When we go back to our constituencies, we will find it difficult to tell people exactly what is going on in respect of cost but, likewise, those on the Labour Benches will not be wiser about the Government's position. I wish that they would probe more into matters.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wish to probe my hon. Friend because he is an expert on immigration and the need for passports. How does he think the scheme will work in practice with European nationals who have an ID card of their own, but who then come to this country for employment purposes for three months? They will be saddled with the extra cost of having to have an extra identity card, when they will probably still have to have one at home. How will the system work for territorials? Will they be required to have ID cards? What does my hon. Friend think?

Humfrey Malins: The cost point is critical for those visiting from the European Union—
Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Joan Ryan) rose in her place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.

Derek Conway: Under Standing Order 89(3), I will put the Question.

Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am slightly unclear about the procedural aspects: I was drawing my remarks to a close and was about to seek leave to withdraw the amendment—

Derek Conway: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order on that issue now.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Conway.

Derek Conway: I cannot take a point of order when the Question has to be put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Conway.

Derek Conway: Not on my ruling.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It would be helpful to the Committee, Mr. Conway, if you could explain matters. We have received no answers from the Minister to the propositions that we put to the Government on amendment No. 44, and that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Derek Conway: I am afraid that the Chair is not responsible for the content of the Minister's reply. The Question has been put and agreed to, so I must now put the Question on whether the amendment be made.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 0, Noes 10.
The Chairman's attention having been drawn to the fact that Mr. John Taylor had given his voice with the Ayes and had not subsequently voted, he directed the hon. Member's vote to be recorded with the Ayes and directed the Clerk to correct the numbers as follows:
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I am probably not alone in being uncertain, procedurally, as to what follows. Is this the appropriate moment for us to vote on amendment No. 43—something that we reserved to ourselves, with your consent, earlier in the proceedings—or do we now move on to the programme motion? I would not like our opportunity to vote on amendment No. 43 to slip.

Derek Conway: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I made it clear at the beginning of the sitting that when we dispensed with this group of amendments, the programme motion would be moved, which I now invite the Minister to do.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. Would it be possible to vote on amendment No. 186?

Derek Conway: It would be in order for the Opposition to indicate that they wish to vote on amendment No. 186 when we reach the right point on the amendment paper rather than on the Chairman's selection list.

Des Browne: I beg to move,
 That the Order of the Committee of 18th January be amended by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (3)— 
 ''(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the following table. 
TABLE  ProceedingsTime for conclusion of proceedings Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 11 11.25 am on Tuesday 25th January Clauses 12 to 15 5.30 pm on Tuesday 25th January Clauses 16 to 19 9.15 am on Thursday 27th January Clauses 20 to 25 11.25 am on Thursday 27th January Remaining proceedings 5.30 pm on Thursday 27th January'' I should like first to reinforce what I said in an intervention, which is that I have written to you, Mr. Conway, to provide a comprehensive set of answers to the various points that were raised last week and which required further information. I have ascertained that a copy of that letter was delivered to all Committee members and placed on the Letter Board yesterday evening. I am now aware that Labour members of the Committee have all received the letter and it is obvious that at least one Opposition Member has also received it because I can see with my own eyes that he has it. I have no way of knowing how other hon. Members organise the delivery of mail that is left for them on the Letter Board. Perhaps their arrangements mean that the letter has not been delivered to them as it would have been normally. 
It was my intention that the letter would allow members of the Committee to have the relevant information before they came to the Committee today. I see that I succeeded in a considerable number of cases. It was never my intention to repeat information that was in the letter, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. 
As regards the programme motion, we have made some progress on the Bill. To consider our progress in terms of amendments, we have dealt with 89 so far, which by my calculation leaves about 84, although I might be one or two out. We have discussed some of the important issues of principle on which the identity cards scheme depends, such as the statutory purpose of the scheme, the registration process and the designation of documents with which the ID cards will be issued, including passports, all without any restrictions on our debate. 
At the outset I made it clear that, from the Government's point of view, there would be flexibility on our approach to such issues. We have exercised that flexibility by working late on both days on which the Committee has so far sat. It is inappropriate to discuss what happens between the usual channels in any detail, although I note that the hon. Member for Cotswold did not strictly observe that convention in a previous debate on a programme motion. I intend to observe that convention appropriately, although discussions have taken place in which we have sought to  accommodate, in so far as possible, reasonable debate of the issues that concerned members of the Committee. 
I also said when we discussed the previous programme motion that I was prepared to consider the prospect of an additional sitting. I am still prepared to do that, whether or not additional time—particularly at the end of this evening, which is when I indicated that we would be prepared to do that—should be called an additional sitting from the Government's point of view, in order to make the necessary progress. That is appropriate and the Government will retain that approach, as long as there is good will on the part of the Opposition on how such issues are approached. 
I am in the position of supporting the programme motion with the best evidence that I could ever have of the absence of that good will. This morning, in one hour and 19 minutes, you had to intervene nine times to bring the Opposition back into order, Mr. Conway. There can be no more eloquent evidence of the Opposition's intentions. This morning there have been nine reasons for you to bring the Opposition back into order, and that happened in as short a period as one hour and 19 minutes; and, unusually in my experience—although I am not as experienced in this House as some other Members—you acceded to a closure motion in relation to the debate minutes before I moved this programme motion.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister refers to nine reasons. Can he tell us how many of them existed—if he believes that any of them did—before the introduction of the motion that we are debating?

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of an argument that I had intended to make before I was given the best reason I could ever have had in advocacy terms to move the programme motion, which is the conduct of Opposition Members this morning. That earlier argument depended on our lack of progress and how unproductively hon. Members had used the time already devoted to the Committee's proceedings. Some experienced Committee members are adept at staying in order while using time for the least productive purpose; outstanding examples of that skill were displayed towards the end of last Thursday's sitting.
I would like that skill to fall into disuse in this Parliament. If we can get to the point where there is an appropriate element of good will between the Opposition and the Government in relation to the debating of matters, we can have a far more grown-up approach to issues, and we can look at how much time they actually need and agree programmes that take them forward. We have not reached that stage in this Parliament; some Members show by their attitude, conduct and behaviour that they are still in their adolescence. It is time they grew up. 
The Bill commands significant support in the country, and this Committee has been charged with taking it through this stage of the legislative process. I am the Minister responsible for that, and I want to  approach the matter on the basis that the legislation will be given the appropriate level of scrutiny. However, I cannot do my job if we get into a situation where time devoted to scrutiny is used in the way that we have just seen, when the Chair of the Committee had to intervene on many occasions. 
The programme motion is designed to ensure that we make progress and do not run out of time. It proceeds by way of knives. It will ensure that we deal this morning with amendments up to clause 11, which requires information to be provided to validate applications for registration. This afternoon, we will be able to discuss amendments to clause 14 on verification with consent, and to clause 15 on the power to make public services conditional upon identity checks. This evening, we will reach amendments to clause 19, which deal with the provision of information without consent. On Thursday morning, we will cover amendments to clauses 24 and 25 on the national identity scheme commissioner, and we will finish off on Thursday afternoon with amendments to clauses 33 to 36 on civil penalties. 
This is a sensible way of managing the Committee's business. The Government are not seeking to force the pace of discussion on the Bill; we seek to order it. Although it appears that we will exceed my prediction of there being no more than five Government amendments, that is not a reason to delay the Committee's deliberations. The current total is six, which is slightly more than the fingers on my hand, to which I referred earlier. 
In part, we have had an informed and constructive debate on the Bill so far. The purpose of the programme motion is to try to ensure that the rest of the time that we devote to it is used constructively and in an informed way. I have sought to persuade Members of all parties of the need for this motion; it may well be a forlorn hope in respect of Opposition members, but I believe that it will help our debate move forward in a sensible fashion, so that we achieve the out-date of 27 January.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise to you, Mr. Conway, and to the Minister for having to leave briefly during his speech. I had to make my apologies to a meeting downstairs. Despite what is being done here, I hope we can restore good relations in the Committee, because that is when Committees work best. If we are all at each other's throats, the Committee will not work well.
We started from the premise that eight sittings for considering major legislation is not sufficient and found that we needed to address the important issues at the beginning of consideration of this Bill, which, I still maintain, is front loaded.

Derek Conway: Order. While the hon. Gentleman gets his breath, I must point out that a number of discussions are going on around the Committee. It would be helpful if the Committee paid attention to the hon. Gentleman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Conway.

Mark Oaten: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he does not talk for long now, we will probably be able to consider some clauses before the night is out? What we are doing now is a complete and utter farce—a waste of time—and it makes people such as me pretty fed up.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman may get grumpy about the programme order—

Mark Oaten: The hon. Gentleman is wasting time now.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: No, I am not. It is important to establish the principle that we, the official Opposition, feel that the imposition of knives is wrong. It should be up to the Committee to debate what clauses it wishes and to spend the time on the clauses it feels are important. It is not up to the Government. They do not know what will happen in each debate, or, before we even start to consider a Bill, how long we need for which clauses—that is simply not possible. Parliament is ill-served by a Government who impose such draconian measures on a Standing Committee.
If the Standing Committee is not given sufficient time to debate important clauses properly, we will argue for time on Report and Third Reading. Again, the Government will probably impose their will and not give us enough time. Thank goodness for the only safeguard in our constitution, which is the other place. I am sure that it will look carefully at these proceedings and, if it finds that clauses have not been properly debated, will certainly devote adequate time to them and use its expertise in considering the measures properly. 
This is how Parliament functions: a Standing Committee of the House of Commons is supposed to examine a Bill line by line, with as much time and scrutiny as it needs. If we cannot do our job properly, and we can do only half or a quarter of a job, what is the point in being here? We might as well have a cosy little meeting between Front Benchers and say, ''We have considered that,'' and then send the legislation straight to the other place. That is not what we are here for. As Members of Parliament, we are here on behalf of our constituents to give Bills proper scrutiny. The draconian measures imposed by this increasingly authoritarian Government mean that we cannot do our job properly.

Mark Oaten: We could be debating the other clauses.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am amazed by the Liberal Democrat party, because the principle is very important. If we, on behalf of our constituents, cannot debate this and every other Bill properly, this Parliament will increasingly be drawn into disrepute. The problem is that not the Government, but all Members of Parliament, get the stick for producing inadequate legislation. Numerous pieces of inadequate legislation have been produced by this Government. I am not saying that this legislation would not still be inadequate if we had longer to scrutinise it, but the chances are that if we had longer we might be able to improve it. If we are not given that chance, the Bill will leave Committee inadequately scrutinised and deficient in a number of senses.

Humfrey Malins: I have followed my hon. Friend's argument and it is right. We are not being treated properly. I am unsure whether he heard the Minister a moment ago refer to members of the Committee showing adolescence and needing to grow up.

Des Browne: No, I never said that.

Humfrey Malins: Words to that effect. I thought that that is what the Minister said, and if I am wrong I am sure he will intervene to correct me.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I had to go downstairs briefly and I did not hear all the Minister's speech. Therefore, I do not know whether he said that or not.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify this. I hope that you, Mr. Conway, will allow me to repeat the point, because the hon. Gentleman was not present to hear it and he is being asked to comment on it. I was making the point that I support his dealing with legislation in a grown-up way. If the whole emphasis in our dealing with legislation is on time, that will encourage some people to behave in an adolescent fashion.
We all need to move to a position where we can sit down and work out in an adult way how much time legislation needs and then proceed. We are not yet at that stage in how the House operates. I did not intend to cast aspersions on any member of the Committee. If my comments have been taken in that way, I apologise.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister. He is a clever man and a clever lawyer. His interventions and explanations are generally helpful to the Committee. I recall that in the first sitting he spent more than an hour explaining one amendment. I have no problem with that. If that is what he wants to do, and the Committee is happy with it, why are the Government coming along with these draconian measures? They are quite unnecessary. If the Committee had started off with good will—with enough time—no doubt we could have agreed to reach certain stages by certain times in certain sittings.
I say to the Minister and through the usual channels that the imposition of unreasonable timetables, and knives in particular, on Bills leads to bad relations in the Committee, which is not good for progress. I have made my point and I hope that we can restore relations, despite what the Minister and the usual channels have done. However, I say in the strongest possible terms that this is bad for the future of Parliament.

John Robertson: I had no real intention of taking part in this short debate, but as my hon. Friend the Minister has made his points, I want to add my twopence-worth. I have sat at the back of the Room and listened to what has been said—on more than a few occasions, it has been repetitive. We have gone over the same points time and time again.
I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Winchester, who wishes to get on with the clauses. I would have had more sympathy with him and fully backed what he said if he had been present during our deliberations the other day. 
The hon. Member for Cotswold must take some responsibility for what has just happened in Committee. [Interruption.] I see that he is about to leave again; now he is coming back. He has not given the Committee his full attention, although I am aware that he is on two Committees.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Robertson: I would like to finish the point. The hon. Gentleman is very able, and I am sure he can handle being on two Committees, but that fact makes it very difficult to listen to him chastising my hon. Friend the Minister for how he has conducted himself. The hon. Gentleman has not been present all the time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had been observant, he would have noticed that I was moving out of my seat to get information from the Clerk on how the timetable is going to work. He has cast a completely unfair aspersion.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and totally withdraw the aspersion that I cast his way. However, that does not change the fact that he has, on occasion, been absent to deal with another Committee. My opinion is that he cannot give  as much time as he should, yet he has chastised my hon. Friend the Minister, who has answered every question, on how he has handled himself. He has even been chastised for speaking for an hour on a very important amendment and supplying the answers to the questions that he was asked.

Patrick Mercer: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to what was said, he would have realised that no chastisement of the Minister was intended by my hon. Friend. We all noticed that the Minister spoke, when the tempo of the Committee seemed to be gathering pace, for a little more than an hour. There was no objection to that; the explanations were properly given and there was certainly no intention to cast any aspersion. The hon. Gentleman should be careful about what he says.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If I have misled the Committee with my remarks, I withdraw them. However, I can only give the impression that I have formed from sitting at the back of the Room and listening to the deliberations.
I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold, who again is not in his place, that it is important to discuss the later clauses as very important points may need to be raised. That does not mean that I am going to mention what I will say later on; I will not. However, we have deliberated on some clauses not at length, but ad nauseam. We have stretched them out for as long as possible and stretched them out twice again. Opposition Members have made some good points, but they were lost because they were made at abnormal length.

Martin Salter: I may not have heard my hon. Friend correctly. Is he informing the Committee that the hon. Member for Cotswold is a member of another Committee? If that is the case, does my hon. Friend not agree that it ill behoves the Opposition to claim that the Government are not giving them time properly to scrutinise this legislation? One of their number is dividing his time between two Committees.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I accept what he says. I have said enough about the hon. Member for Cotswold. I leave it to those in the Committee, and those who read Hansard, to decide whether he has given the Committee his undivided attention. This Bill is very important to me and to the people I represent, and I think it is important that we discuss it in a proper—and, perhaps, occasionally frank—manner. I just wanted that put on the record.

David Curry: When I was first elected to the House, my party was in government. The bane of almost every single Member of Parliament was the Member for Keighley, Bob Cryer, who used to keep us up night after night talking on money resolutions and anything that he could. Bob Cryer was a great parliamentarian. He drove us round the bend, but he was doing his job. He was exploiting the procedure to hold the  Government to account, to make them impatient and to make Government Members tired and fed up. That was the job that he was there to do, and he did it brilliantly.

Chris Mole: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the official Opposition have been exploiting the procedures?

David Curry: If an Opposition cannot exploit the procedures, they should not be here.
I have had the experience of going from anonymity to becoming an elder statesman with no intermediate phase, and I spent many years doing the job that the Minister is doing. I took a number of complex Bills through the House, in particular the one that became the Housing Act 1996, which was infinitely bigger Bill than this Bill. Not a single measure was guillotined or involved knives. The usual channels and the Labour Opposition did a deal. Consideration of the Bill lasted for months and on Report we were 20 minutes behind schedule. 
The Minister talked about good will. The great destroyer of good will in the House is the Government's practice of timetabling every single measure. That is not necessary; the Government will get their legislation. I took my legislation through with a Government majority of two. The Minister has a majority behind him that is bigger than the official Opposition at full strength. It is not necessary to do things in such a way. 
If Opposition Members feel that we are being railroaded and are unable to give adequate scrutiny, it is because of that breach of the fundamental complicity between Members on both sides of the House that the timetabling of all legislation necessarily entails. That is why, when legislation goes to the other House, the Government experience more difficulty. The other House is substituting itself, in a sense, in the role that we are no longer permitted to play. That is an essential point. 
My second point is that the Minister said that the Bill has wide public support. The fact that a measure has wide public support does not relieve the House of its requirement to scrutinise. If I introduced a Bill to restore capital punishment, which I have consistently voted against, I have no doubt that it would have wide public support. However, I would not stand up and say that because the opinion polls tell me that 77 per cent. of the population believe in capital punishment, preferably in public, we should not scrutinise the legislation. I would expect people to accept that the job of the House is to scrutinise. 
The argument has come from those on the Labour Benches—on Second Reading in particular—that because there is wide public support for the Bill, opposition is irrelevant or irresponsible. We must resist that, because otherwise we would not be doing our job. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold says that he will get the Bill out of Committee by common agreement, he will do so. I was driven mad when I did the Minister's job, because I  thought that we would never get the wretched legislation out. However, my hon. Friend's equivalent was as good as his word and we got the Bill out. 
So, we can work together, but the Minister should pass the message back that things always get off to a bad start if the Government begin on the assumption that what I have described as a complicity across the House cannot be called into being. That means that we are driven to want to exploit the procedures, just as Bob Cryer exploited them. We are doing the job that we are paid to do.

Patrick Mercer: We have several times heard that the Bill is popular with the public. We have been told—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting him. We are about to vote on this motion, and the Government will no doubt use their majority to succeed. If they succeed, you will have to put the question. That will mean that important clauses entitled ''Renewal of ID cards for those compulsorily registered'', ''Functions of persons issuing designated documents'' and ''Power to require information for validating Register''—vital clauses—will be completely undebated by the Committee. That is the consequence of what the Government are doing. It brings Parliament into disrepute.

Derek Conway: Sadly, that is not a point of order for the Chair, although the observation is entirely accurate and I will put the question. In fact, I must interrupt Mr. Mercer, who had the Floor.
It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, The Chairman put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order 83C(9). 
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Ordered, 
Amendment proposed: No. 43, in clause 8, page 7, line 7, at end insert 
'and 
(c) is issued for the following purposes only— 
(i) to assist in preventing or detecting terrorist acts in the United Kingdom or elsewhere or otherwise in the interests of national security; 
(ii) to assist the Secretary of State in preventing or detecting serious crime; 
(iii) the purposes of controlling illegal immigration and enforcing immigration controls;
(iv) the purpose of securing proper provision of the following public services, namely— 
(a) healthcare, 
(b) housing, 
(c) education, 
(d) social security benefits. 
 (1A) In subsection (1)(c)(ii), ''serious crime'' has the same meaning as in section 1(1A).'.—[Mr. Malins.] 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mark Oaten: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 8, page 7, line 9, after 'recording', insert 'prescribed'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 89, in clause 8, page 7, line 11, after 'carrying', insert 'prescribed'.

Mark Oaten: I will probably not be able to do much more than welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Conway, other than to say that this amendment is probing. We want clarification from the Minister. Clause 8 refers several times to registrable facts. Are they the same as those in clause 1(5)?

Des Browne: I shall be brief. Frankly, I do not see the need for either amendment. The first asks for a card to record ''prescribed'' registrable facts about an individual, but subsection (3)(a) says that a card
''must record only the prescribed information'', 
so it is difficult to see what the amendment would add. 
I should add that clause 8(2)(b) involves only the carrying of data that enable the card to be used for applications for information—for example, a personal identification number. It is not about what information held in the register may be provided to third parties. That is dealt with in later clauses. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful for that reassurance and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
Question put, That clauses 8 to 11 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
Clauses 8 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.